"ON LARGE-SCALE AND SMALL-SCALE PRODUCTION IN AGRICULTURE"]1
[1901]

Hubert Auhagen. Ueber Gross- und
Kleinbetrieb in der L[and]w[irtsch]aft (Thiel's
Jahrb[ücher], B[and] 25, Jahrgang 1896,
pp. 1—55).

Village of Clauen (Province of Hannover)
(District Peine)
(Excellent !!)
I — 4.62 ha (100) example
II — 26.80 » (573)
Auhagen — 
unequivocally
in favor of 
small-scale
[operation]

(Drainage)

The author says he tried to find a village with "land as uniform as possible" (p. 1), but does not give bondification ratings I and II.

"Both farms belong to the better farms of the locality" (p. 1).

Land cultivation — see special sheet.

With 1 cow they plow and get on working days (105 days) more fodder. On hot summer days they are "overexerted" (p. 9), but the proprietor gives them more mangels then.

Drain-
age     I — 480 Mk (3% = 14.40)    (see ta-
        II — 5,000 Mk (3% = 90.00)    ble ***)

The value of the product is taken as equal. No facts [provided].

In small farms there is better care of livestock: "The master's eye fattens his cattle" (p. 27).

Agriculture in I and II of the same system and character.

Livestock breeding — no. In II — "cattle are fattened for sale and not bred," while in I — "each head of cattle is of their own breeding" (p. 28). It is very, very common that a large farmer buys "lean cattle" from a small farmer and "fattens it" — throughout Germany (p. 28): "small-scale farming has an advantage over large-scale in livestock breeding" (p. 29).

"Maintenance of buildings" — the small farmer repairs [them] mostly himself (p. 30).

Dead inventory with II is very high (machinery) — but I is not "backward" (p. 31), because the small farmer gets by (!!) just as well with simpler implements.

Depreciation with I — 2%, with II — 6%. With II — a farm wagon lasts 10—12 years, while I has held the farm for 22 years since his father and never bought a wagon, nor does he remember his father buying one, and he held the farm for 30 years. "Small implements in small farms are used until they are no longer usable" (31).

II spends on hiring workers 3,872.93 marks = 36.54 per morgen, while the small farmer economizes all this because he is both worker and proprietor (p. 55 highlighted). This is — a tremendous advantage of small-scale farming!!!

Small-scale farming — "land hunger."

"The purchaser of a small landed property usually understands perfectly well that he would be financially better off if he worked for day wages and had the income from the interest on his capital as well. But he renounces this higher profit in favor of a more comfortable position for himself" (33)...

In the "Saarbrücken coal district" — "these small proprietors form the good stock of miners" (33) — thus a factory director in Neunkirchen told the author, and Auhagen against "social-democratic agitation" maintains:

"The state could do nothing better in this region to solve the workers' question than to facilitate for workers the acquisition of small plots of land through the provision of credit" (33).

Advantages of I: "The help of the children begins with him (the small farmer) often already from the moment they can walk" (34)!

Pp. 39—40 — example of the economy of the small farmer (cited by Kautsky): [his] wife at age 17 of marriage wore out one pair of shoes, etc., etc.9

Reasons for higher yields in I

1) cultivation of fields is more careful — they work themselves;
"The ordinary day laborer, especially in large farms, thinks while he works: 'If only the holiday would come'; while the small farmer dreams, at least during all urgent work: 'If only the day were a couple of hours longer'" (p. 42).

2) in I the work is more timely: more workers per hectare. The small farmer can rise earlier, retire later (p. 43), when very pressing

3) I is not afraid of work: they collected beetles by hand.

4) I harvests faster at harvest time, grain does not have time to fall out.

5) I — "better seed material": selected by hand in winter (no thresher!)

6) I — more manure, because more cattle (no figures).

Sales I = 3,400.80 — 735.34 per ha.
    II = 14,097.41 — 531.98 per ha.

Net yield also higher (see table % on capital*)

Auhagen himself sees that the standard of living is different (p. 49) and excludes household [consumption] (see table**)

— "but what I would like to say is true throughout all of Germany, that is the higher rent in small peasant farms as compared with the rent in large peasant and landlord estates" (49)

therefore land is more expensive with small-scale farming. "Subdivision of agricultural estates.... means... an increase in national wealth" (50)

Auhagen acknowledges that small farmers often have backward systems of farming (51). With large farmers they are impossible: only improvements can be maintained. But progress does not come only from large-scale farming, but from "well-to-do proprietors" (!).

Notes on different places in Germany (briefly on the superiority of different farms according to size in different places).

"Ausgebaute" (those who moved out of villages, smallholders) mostly farm better (54—5): in the village there is more routine***.

(P. Auhagen) p. 5

INCOME

I. Cash from Sales:
                                I                    II
                              Mk                   Mk
From arable farming . . .      1,596.40           7,991.16
» garden . . .                 —                  90.
» livestock . . .              1,804.40           21,171.03
Other (plowing and haulage work) . . .             42.                    200.

Total cash income . . .        3,028.80           29,452.41

II. For household consumption:
Products of arable farming . . .  182.              178.
» garden . . .                    30.               50.
» livestock . . .                 346.15            233.50
                                  558.15            461.50

III. For provisioning hired workers:
Products of arable farming . . .  —                 350.
» garden . . .                    —                 35.
» livestock . . .                 —                 377.04
                                  —                 762.04

Total natural income . . .     558.15             1,223.54

EXPENSES

A. For the conduct of the farm
                                              I                  II
                                            Mk                 Mk
Taxes . . .                                  63.55              321.54
Insurance . . .                             89.85              600.13
Maintenance and depreciation of drainage 3%  14.40              90.00
Depreciation of building capital (3/4%)     47.25              187.50
Maintenance of buildings                    15.00              178.60
Depreciation of dead inventory (2%)         14.42              291.66
(and 6%!!!)
Maintenance of dead inventory . . .         15.00              285.05
Replenishment of live inventory . . .       —                  15,641.00*
Hired workers . . .                         —                  3,872.93
Artificial fertilizer . . .                 198.00             2,052.00
Concentrated feed . . .                     141.50             1,537.50
Breeding fee . . .                          8.00               —
Veterinarian . . .                          6.00               48.00
Renewal of seed . . .                       2.80               60.00
Miscellaneous . . .                         6.00               35.00

Total farm expenses . . .                   621.17             25,200.81

NB
NB
NB

* Including 14,355 for the purchase of 55 young oxen,
sold for 19,420.80. Without them
I — 0, and II — 1,286 Mk
« + P + T    I — 44.42
          II — 755.31
45 49
2,041.31

and the entire value of buildings,
dead and live inventory = 9,151.60

B. For household expenses
                                              I                 II
                                            Mk                Mk
Income tax . . .                            12.00             104.00
Church levies . . .                         22.10             100.85
Farm products . . .                         558.15            461.50
Additional purchase of potatoes . . .       —                 50.
» meat . . .                                 18.00             124.80

Colonial goods . . .                        81.00             216.00
Clothing . . .                              220.00            588.00
Footwear . .                                52.                61.
Son at gymnasium * . .                      —                 700.
Doctor and pharmacy . . .                   25.                60.
Tobacco . . .                               24.                80.
Beverages . . .                             26.                70.
Celebrations etc. . .                       25.                120.
Fuel . . .                                  59.15              —
Miscellany . . .                            35.20              —

Total household expenses . . .              1,158.50**         2,736.25

Total expenses . . .                        1,780.37**         27,955.16

Family composition: I husband + wife                II husband + wife
2 daughters (16 and 9 years)              1 daughter 9 years
5 people        1 son (7 years)           5 people
1 son — 14 years
1 nephew 17 years

Total income:                             3,586.05           30,675.95
Total expenses:                           1,780.37**         27,955.16
Cash surplus:                             1,806.58*          2,720.79
% of sale value (33,651.80 and 149,559)   2.39%***           1.82%

Adding to the income the household expenses (p. 49), we have:
                                          1,965.08           5,457.04
% of sale value . . .                     5.80%***           3.71%

Total income from agriculture (p. 26) . . 1,778.                6,613.80****
livestock . . .                           2,150.53

* Maintenance and tuition.
** The author made an error: 1,750.37 and 836.58 due to an incorrect
sum of 1,128.80 (cf. p. 48 and p. 13) instead of 1,158.80.
*** The author made an error: !! 5.48% and !!! 8.81%, because he takes
the totals 836.38 instead of 806.88 and 2,965.08 (sic!!) instead of 1,965.08
and moreover makes terrible errors in calculating %%!
**** Additional income from oxen sold for 19,420.80 = 5,065.80.

Land Care

Cultivation of land.
Depth of plow          Artificial fertilizer    Yield per ha
                       per 1/4 ha               in centners
I      II              I           II          I           II

Sugar beets
analogously, and  25 cm  50 cm     Marks       Marks       (31/2 cnt.) (41/2 cnt.)
fodder beets p. 6

Rye — 6 cm   15 cm    Superphosphate          4 cnt.      6 cnt.
                      + 120 lbs.  120—300
                      Chilean
                      saltpeter

Barley — 6 cm   10 cm   Superphosphate         4 cnt.      4 cnt.

Potatoes — 6 cm   10 cm   —  —  +  +
25 cm   20 cm

Beans — 9 cm   24 cm    1,320      Stable manure  1.440
                        cnt.

Clover . . .     ?      ?          Superphosphate 8 cnt.     4 cnt.

Winter wheat... 25 cm   20 cm      480 cnt. (8 cnt.
                        Stable     manure    Superphosphate ?
                        manure)

Thus, cultivation and fertilization are much better in II, yet yields are lower!! {Clearly, the land in II is worse} [Bondification not given]

I                           II
Total expenditure on artificial fertilizer — 198.0 — 2,052.0 marks
per 1/4 ha... 10.70 — 19.36 marks

P. 7 (Hubert Auhagen)

Care of livestock: pp. 8 and 20:

Animal Feed
                            I                           II
                    centners   in Marks        centners    in Marks
Beans . . .          4.4       290.10          250.00      1,625.00
Rye                  —         —               10.00       70.00
Wheat                0.40      3.20            15.00       120.00
Barley               19.81     118.60          67.00       402.00
Oats                 —         —               239.00      1,505.70
Sugar beet snippets  400.       81.60          2,312.00    462.40
Fodder beets         192.00    96.00           —           —
Potatoes             10.20     20.10           —           —
Clover (dry)         65.0      195.00          210.00      630.00
Total                —         —               —           —

Milk (prices I calculated)                      1,320 liters  105.60    liters    19.20

Purchased feed       centners  141.50          centners    1,537.50
(my total)           1,052.32                              6,371.80
% (mine) . . .

It is undoubted that the livestock is better fed, more abundantly in II

Milk production
I                                   II
3 cows  9,700 liters — 3 cows  9,600 liters

II holds from September 15 — 25 oxen, fattening and selling by January 1. Then from January 1 to April 1 it holds 30 oxen, fattening and selling. Hence both in expenditure and income — 55 oxen. The feed, however, Auhagen apparently calculates on 25 oxen per year.

Let us compare this with complete data on the quantity of livestock

                        I           II
                       Mk          Mk
Horses . . .           —           3,600
Working oxen . . .     —           1,350
Cows . . .             3           1,260        1,200
Large cattle and young stock . . .  3  6,750
Pigs — sow and piglets . . .        13  —         —
Hens . . .                          17  20.       —
Pigeons . . .                       —   —
Total value of live inventory . . . 2,130.4     13,398
% (mine): and by quantity . .      (5.5)       (23.25)

If approximately we convert all to large cattle:
                        [I]                    [II]
Large . . .            —                       12.5
by 7/3 small           1.5                     —
» » 7/4               0.5                     0.75
» » 7/8               1.5 ?? (1 ?)            —
Total                  (5.6)*                 23.81

And maintenance of workers?

I. 3 family workers (p. 3) and 2 non-working family members.
Their maintenance = 1,158.50 on 5 workers

II. 3 family workers (!!) (p. 15 "constantly as leaders, occasionally as workers").
Non-working family members 2 (? because son in gymnasium)
Their maintenance = 2,736.25 on 5 workers.

Hired workers 5 + 3 + 0.8 = 8.8 annual.
                                                    Marks
Their maintenance = 3,872.93 : 8.8 = 440
(N.B. 1,158.50 : 3 = 586
I   386)

Hired workers: 5 year-round — vis from May 1 to November 10, i.e., 61/2 months, i.e., 6 × 61/3 = 38 months = 31/3 years. — 4 for 4—5 weeks each, i.e., 4 × 5 = 20 weeks, and 3 for 4 weeks each, i.e., 3 × 4 = 12 weeks, total 52 weeks. 1/6 year + 38/12 = 1/6 + 19/6 = 20/6 = 10/3 = 78.10%, i.e., less than 80%.

The small farmer lives worse than the hired worker of the large farmer, counting paid labor: in I — 586 Marks, in II — 440 Marks per worker.

Summary: for the small peasant farmer

1. Care of land is worse: plowing depth (p. 6)* is less. Less fertilizer. Contrary to this: yields. Therefore, the land is better.

2. Care of livestock is worse: statistical data p. 7**.

3. » of workers is worse: p. 7*** (and p. 5****)

4. » of dead inventory is worse: p. 5****

5. Productivity of labor is lower (cf. number of workers p. 6* and 5**)

The small farmer lives worse than the hired worker of the large farmer and more scantily "feeds" the land and farm.

The small farmer works harder: 3 [family workers]